August 2012This report evaluates the Chicago Police Department’s handling of the NATO Summit protests in May of 2012. This report is based on personal observations of demonstrations that occurred May 18-21 as well as reviews of videos, photos, live streams, and media reports before, during, and immediately after these dates. In addition a draft of this report was made available to the Chicago Police Department (CPD), the ACLU-Northern Illinois, and the Chicago office of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), for comment. I received factual comments from the CPD and the NLG. The goal of this report is to highlight areas in which the CPD took steps to protect the right to protest and reduce escalation and violent confrontations as well as those instances where police practices failed to do this or could be improved to reduce the likelihood of violence or denial of the right to assemble. SummarySuperintendent McCarthy has made several public statements indicating that his goal in policing the NATO demonstrations was to maintain police legitimacy.[1] This is a part of a larger strategic orientation that argues that police effectiveness is improved when the people being policed view police actions as being generally appropriate, even if they may be upset about a particular interaction.[2] Training regarding “legitimacy and mutual respect” is being given to officers throughout the department.[3] This is very similar to the British philosophy of policing by consent, [4] in which the police try to garner public cooperation not through coercion or the threat of force, but through good communication and a strong long-term relationship with the public. In public order policing, this can be very important. Protestors as well as members of the public and the media, will be much more sympathetic to police orders and enforcement action, if they have a reservoir of faith that the police act reasonably and with the public interest in mind. When the police are viewed as corrupt, ineffective, or brutal, this colors perceptions of their future actions and diminishes the public’s willingness to give them the benefit of the doubt both on the street and at home watching on television. To this end, Sup. McCarthy developed a public order policing strategy that tried as much as possible to rely on a flexible and tolerant policing posture with good communication and limited use of arrests or other force. This included good communication between the CPD and demonstrators, between himself and line commanders and officers, and between himself and the public. Much of the policing of demonstrations over the NATO summit period supported the police legitimacy model. People were able to rally and march without permits through a large part of central Chicago, with only limited enforcement action. Police were generally in regular uniforms, had good communication with demonstrators, and avoided arrests and use of force. This approach generated a great deal of good will from the media and the general public about the overall handling of the demonstrations. There were, however, several problem areas that clouded this otherwise sunny assessment and may in the long run significantly damage the CPD’s relationship with protest organizers. The use of batons on Sunday, May 20th might have been avoided if police had taken up a more defensive posture by using steel barricades and, if necessary, shields to control non-compliant demonstrators. This might have prevented the kinds of offensive acts undertaken by protestors that led to police baton strikes against demonstrators and media at Michigan and Cermak, which resulted in injuries to both demonstrators and police. If large numbers of people are prevented from participating in demonstrations because of preemptive actions taken by the police, then the value of flexible and tolerant practices on the streets is largely lost. The creation of more restrictive protest laws, failure to grant permits in a timely and reasonable manner, highly publicized preemptive arrests, and overt surveillance of demonstration organizers and protest participants can all have a profoundly chilling effect on people’s willingness to participate in protest activity. Confusion about permits and the creation of new legal restrictions on demonstrating created a great deal of tension with demonstration organizers and signaled a degree of confrontation that may have played a role in deterring some people from participating in these events and may have encouraged a more militant and confrontational posture among some groups of demonstrators. The use of police agents to infiltrate and arrest NATO protestors prior to the demonstrations on what appear to be questionable grounds created a climate of fear that interfered with the political messages demonstrators were trying to convey and contributed to a climate of secrecy and distrust between demonstrators and the CPD, neither of which is conducive of improved relations between police and demonstrators. New lawsOn December 14, 2011, Mayor Emanuel announced a series of proposed changes to the city’s parade ordinance.[5] These included substantially increasing fines for civil disobedience and resisting arrest. It would also create a host of new requirements for obtaining permits including liability insurance, a 1:100 marshal to protestor ratio, and a list of all banners, signs, and amplification devices expected at a demonstration, along with substantial fines for organizers for non-compliance. It also moved park openings from 4 AM to 6 AM, and created noise restrictions from 10 PM to 8 AM. Initially the mayor indicated that these changes would be temporary and would only apply to the G8/NATO summit period as had been the case for the Free Trade Area of the America’s summit in Miami in 2005.[6] The mayor reversed this position on January 2nd, possibly because such a move would raise issues of content based discrimination, which would violate Constitutional standards.[7]On June 18th Supt. McCarthy offered an amended version of the law that did not contain the increased fines. The measure passed the City Council overwhelmingly.[8]The passage of new laws can create a self-fulfilling prophecy in which more moderate demonstrators are intimidated from attending protest events, leaving only more militant elements, who are more prone to engage in provocative, illegal, and even violent behavior—especially when they make up a larger share of the demonstration than would otherwise be the case. Other cities have changed local laws to restrict protest activity and these changes have done little to reduce conflict or give police powers that they didn’t already have to control violent, destructive, or highly disruptive behavior. The main result of these laws has been to poison police protestor relations and create a climate of conflict prior the demonstration in a way that may intimidate some from participating. It appears that these new regulations were used to restrict and delay the issuing of permits as described below. No fines, however, were levied against protest organizers for violating the permit rules and some sidewalk and street protests were allowed without formal permits.Permits There were some problems in the issuing of permits, which is done by the City through the Department of Transportation, in coordination with the CPD. On January 2nd anti-War organizers applied for permits for a May 19th march and rally to coincide with the NATO and G8 summits and made extensive efforts to comply with new rules regarding insurance, timing, and route. When the G8 pulled out, organizers wanted to move the march to the 20th to more closely coincide with the NATO Summit beginning that day. On March 15, the City denied the permit for the 20th citing logistical challenges in managing both security for the NATO event, which involved dozens of heads of state and other diplomats, and a large demonstration.[9] On March 30, an administrative judge for the city, who only interprets city ordinances, but does not consider constitutional issues, denied the appeal.[10] On April 4, the City, after working out an adjusted march route with organizers, reversed itself and granted a permit.[11]It is impossible to gauge the exact effects of this kind of permit delay. March organizers have argued that the lack of a permit until 6 weeks before the event had a significant effect in recruiting and organizing out of town participants, since greater lead time is needed. Even for local participants, a delay in issuing permits effects outreach to new constituencies and coalition building activities, which can both take long periods of time. A battle over permits also contributes to an air of conflict, that when combined with restrictive new laws and negative publicity before the event, can have a chilling effect on potential participants concerned about confrontation with the police or other government authorities.There was also a conflict over permits for the Nurses union rally on March 18th. While a permit had been granted far in advance of this event, the city pulled the permit just a week before the event because of concerns about the addition of a well-known musician to the event lineup, creating concerns that the crowd might be larger than the capacity of Daley Plaza, which is estimated at about 5,000. According to Roderick Drew, spokesperson for the Chicago Department of Law, a crowd crammed in a relatively small space could present a serious health and safety risk:Only a finite number of people can fit in Daley Plaza. Thousands more people than were estimated in the original application will be there. Plus it’s the Crosstown Classic at Wrigley Field and the middle of a workday. There will be street closures for the summit. It all creates concerns.[12] The original crowd estimates were for about 2,000. After several days of extensive publicity about the loss of the permit and the unwillingness of the Nurses union to change locations, the City again relented and allowed the event to go forward as planned.[13] (In the end, attendance was close to 2,000 and there were no crowd control problems. The city was well prepared with barricades on surrounding sidewalks to help manage potential overflow. Once again the last minute effort to change the march route and rally location contributed to a confrontational climate prior to the event. At a press conference protesting the permit revocation Nurses union president Jean Ross said: “We will not be silenced. Whatever happens, we will hold our rally.”[14] This defiant tone indicates that trust and cooperation between the city and the union had substantially broken down. In addition, the police circulated flyers during the event reiterating the rally end time, implying that enforcement action might be forthcoming if people failed to disperse quickly at the end of the event.(flyer) While at first glance, this could be seen as an effort to enhance communication between the police and demonstrators, the emphasis on a legalistic approach to the permit implied the potential of inflexible enforcement of the permit, which could lead to unnecessary conflict. Preemptive terrorism arrests and infiltrationThree separate sets of arrests were made prior to the NATO demonstrations. Concrete facts related to these arrests are limited at this time, but several concerns suggest themselves. On May 17th police arrested about a dozen people.[15] They were taken to an undisclosed location and unable to contact lawyers despite being questioned by the police. Sup. McCarthy initially denied knowledge of the arrests, which lacks credibility considering the extensiveness of the operation and the seriousness of the charges. Within about 24 hours all but three were released. Those detained claimed that they were denied access to bathrooms and lawyers and were never told why they were being detained.[16]Police claim that Molotov cocktails were being produced and that there were extensive plans to target police stations, the Mayor’s home and the Obama campaign headquarters. On May 20th police arrested two other men in separate incidents.[17] The first was accused of planning to build pipe bombs. The second was accused of making threats of blowing up train overpass. No explosives were found in either case. These arrests appear to be tied together by the use of undercover informants working for the CPD or possibly another government agency, such as the FBI. Defense attorneys identified two people that their clients feel were infiltrating their organization and a police source confirmed that these were undercover officers.These arrests appear to be part of a pattern of making preemptive arrests of political activists just prior to large summit or political convention protests.[18] Activists living spaces, convergence centers and other sites have been raided with policing making grandiose claims of finding offensive weapons of various sorts, only to see the charges dropped after the protests are over. Similarly, activists in these cases have often been subjected to very serious charges and held on very high bails, again, only to see the charges either dropped or reduced to misdemeanors. Another pattern has also emerged recently of using government agents or informants to infiltrate activist communities with the intention of actively encouraging participation in planning illegal activities designed by the informant or agent. These appear to be worse than idle fishing expeditions, bordering instead on entrapment with the purpose of disrupting political organizing rather than illegal activity. Surveillance Both the State police and the CPD engaged in widespread and extensive videotaping of lawful protest activity. During the permitted Nurses’ rally at Daley Plaza on May 18th, multiple state police officers were involved in systematically photographing and videotaping of demonstrators including the photographing of signs and banners. This raises the issue of the purpose of this surveillance. What legitimate law enforcement function is served by recording people’s political statements? This activity suggests the creation of political files whose primary purpose is political intelligence gathering rather than law enforcement investigation. Similarly, CPD Investigative Services officers were present at every demonstration, whether there was an official permit, an implicit one, or none at all. In some cases officers systematically videotaped almost all participants in an event as they arrived or were gathering.() This videotaping occurred long before any activity that could be construed as illegal was occurring, about to occur, or had recently occurred. Neither the State Police nor the CPD have said what they intend to do with videotape of lawful demonstrators. Regardless of the actual use of these images, the lack of transparency and the systematic and indiscriminate nature in which they were collected would suggest to a reasonable person a distinct possibility of their images becoming part of a political database used to monitor people solely based on their political beliefs; completely disconnected from any actual or potential illegal activity. Media freedomOverall there was a high degree of press freedom in the covering of demonstrations during the NATO Summit. Press had good access to the demonstrations and there were no targeted or even incidental arrests of credentialed or independent media. There were, however, some problem areas.The CPD issued public statements that the media would be limited in some of the freedoms they have enjoyed in the past including the ability to pass through police lines and that if they failed to obey police dispersal orders that they might be subjected to arrest or physical force along with demonstrators.[19]At 2 AM on May 20th several journalists who livestream protests were pulled over, searched and interrogated at gunpoint.[20] They were ordered to cease videotaping and police allegedly attempted to damage some of their equipment. After a brief interrogation they were released without charge.During the May 20th march, CPD tactical officers established skirmish lines separating marchers from intersecting streets. In addition to preventing people from joining or exiting the march, credentialed reporters were prevented from crossing these police lines. This seemed excessive given the low level of threat and lack of any conflict during the permitted march. During the post rally violent confrontations on Cermak at least two journalist were injured including Getty photographer Scott Olson.[21] In addition, Getty photographer Joshua Lott was arrested. Handling of un-permitted marchesThe CPD showed flexibility and tolerance in handling a large number of unpermitted marches. There were small to medium sized unpermitted marches every day during the May 18-21 period of my study indicating that there was space for people to assemble and publicly express their grievances. On several occasions, however, police used skirmish lines to try to force demonstrators onto sidewalks or to temporarily immobilize them. These efforts sometimes resulted in police use of force and arrests, undermining the otherwise non-violent, if disruptive, character of these marches.On March 18 there was a small feeder march from LaSalle and Jackson of about 150 Occupy activists to the Nurses’ Rally in Daley Plaza. Marchers immediately took to the streets and a small number of police on bicycles and Segways escorted the march. There was no attempt to block the march or force it onto the sidewalk. Some effort was made to redirect traffic, but the small size and short distance of the march made this a minor concern. Around 1:40 PM on the 18th there was a group gathering for a second march leaving from Daley Plaza. Here there was one incident in which Deputy Chief Guillford confronted a group of young men wearing black. He attempted to detain them and called in an arrest team that he had prepositioned there. In the end one man was arrested. There was no apparent reason for the arrest and it created a great deal of commotion and many people spilled into Washington Ave. as the police took him away. This appeared to have been a preemptive measure to target potential “black block” members and based on my direct observation of the incident, lacked a legal basis. About 1:50 PM the second march commenced. I began on the sidewalk moving south on Clarke with a few dozen police on foot and bicycle escorting about 4-500 demonstrators. It quickly moved into the street where it remained over several hours. The CPD allowed the march to proceed over a wide area of central Chicago. Marchers were prevented at times from moving in particular directions such as South on Michigan Ave and from getting close to Lake Shore Drive or crossing the DuSable Bridge to the north. At one point the march was stopped and some arrests were attempted after a protestor tore down a NATO banner, the march, however, was allowed to continue. In a few cases the police tried to move the demonstrators off the street and onto the sidewalk. These efforts occurred at Monroe and Columbus, Randolph east of Michigan, and Wacker west of Michigan. These efforts were all unsuccessful as police had insufficient officers positioned between sidewalks and the street, so that demonstrators merely moved back into the street after passing the police skirmish lines.[22]For the rest of the afternoon a few hundred marchers were allowed to proceed through the Loop largely without incident including a half hour sit-in in the street in front of the Federal Reserve at the intersection of LaSalle and Jackson. Following that, marchers proceeded East on Jackson, at which point police under the command of Chiefs Guillford and Tracy corralled the demonstrators onto the sidewalk on Michigan Ave. allowing them to continue south on the sidewalk. Mounted and bicycle units along with tactical teams were used to do this. While the police had a heavy presence of regular uniform and at times tactical officers, the march was allowed to continue without a prior permit or agreed upon route for 1 ½ hours. The only attempted arrest was for tearing down a NATO banner. The police showed tremendous tolerance and flexibility in an effort to maintain the basically peaceful nature of the event, while containing it to the Loop district. On Saturday there was an unpermitted march of approximately 400 people from Horner Park to Mayor Emanuel’s home. Marchers gathered in the park were there were speakers and free food. At approximately 1:20 the marchers proceeded northeast through the park until they reached Montrose, where they moved into the street and proceeded east. The police made only a limited effort to initially keep them on the sidewalk and allowed the march to continue for close to an hour until it arrived at the Mayor’s house. There demonstrators were allowed to congregate on the street until they voluntarily dispersed in groups over the next hour. Police made an effort to manage oncoming and cross town traffic to reduce the inconvenience to motorists and protect demonstrators. Officers wore regular uniforms and a local Commander marched in the procession in an attempt to closely monitor events and maintain good communication with demonstrations organizers. Several Chiefs and Superintendent McCarthy were present but kept a low profile and tensions remained low throughout the event. A couple of dozen officers on bikes with riot helmets were used to create a line in front of the Mayor’s house, but this was done in a reasonably non-confrontational way. A sound truck and tactical units were available but not used. At 4PM on Saturday another group of about 300 gathered at Daley Plaza for an unpermitted rally and march in support of those arrested in previous days on terrorism related charges. For about 2 hours demonstrators were allowed to march within the Loop district, but were prevented from moving outside that area, though many in that group attempt to meet up with another group attempting to gather at the Haymarket Memorial sight west of the Loop. There was a very heavy police presence at the memorial and people were unable to gather there. Police executed numerous skirmish lines that prevented people from assembling and marching as a group. At one point three different groups were marching separately. Eventually most demonstrators converged in the northeast Loop again splitting up into two marches one headed East on Randolph and another headed east on Washington. Eventually these groups converge on Washington near Daley Plaza. The group was briefly kettled at Washington and State St. before being allowed to proceed again. The march continued for another 3 hours. At approximately 10:40 PM police van 6751 with sirens on drove through the crowd at Jackson and Wacker. Some demonstrators were injured as a result. The officer claimed afterwards that he was trapped and feared that the crowd was attacking him. Whatever motivated the officer to drive through an otherwise peaceful crowd, it was a dangerous maneuver that was not well executed. The officer would have been much better served by calling for assistance and waiting for officers on foot on bike to assist him in an organized way, thus substantially reducing the likelihood of serious injury and a destabilization of the overall march. On Sunday, following the permitted march and rally, there were at least two unpermitted marches that joined together in the Loop. On several occasions police used force to try and control a relatively small number of demonstrators [23]. On Monday, May 21st. there was an unpermitted march from Union Park to the Boeing headquarters. About 100 people gathered in the park. There was a light presence of officers but Investigative Services officers engaged in extensive videotaping from the periphery. The group was allowed to march east on Lake in the street. Upon arriving at Boeing, demonstrators were allowed to congregate and rally in the street in front of the building without incident. Police presence was heavy and some metal barricades were used along Washington. Access between the street and sidewalks was fluid and the event went off without incident. Handling of permitted rallies and marchesThere were two events in this category. The first was the Nurses Association Rally on May 18. CPD presence at this event was visible but not excessive. CPD officers were in regular uniforms, as were the state police on scene. There was limited use of barricades to protect the stage area and create a barrier between the plaza and the building. There were also some barriers along the sidewalk and CPD vehicles created a barrier to the street along Washington. Additionally there were some barriers along Washington on blocks to either side of the Plaza. These barriers did not create an impediment to entry to or exit from the demonstration area. The police had initially denied a permit for this event for fear of excessive crowds due to the addition of a high profile music performer. In the end, however, the permit was granted until 2PM. Police circulated a memo to demonstrators reminding them of the 2 PM permit end time. In one sense this represented an effort to have clear communication with the crowd. On the other hand, it seemed a bit intimidating and confrontational to emphasize a precise end time in a way that implied that enforcement action would be forthcoming. Overall, the event went smoothly with one exception, which was the arrest of a young man described above, which created a disturbance in that corner of the rally. It did not, however, interfere with the rest of the event. In addition, police allowed tabling and the distribution of free food without incident.[24]The second event was the permitted rally and march on May 20. The rally and march both occurred without incident. The rally area had a very limited police presence and access and egress were unrestricted. Demonstrators did, however, have to walk past a checkpoint on both sides of the street at which Investigative Services officers videotaped them. The march began on time and moved smoothly. In the early blocks members of the public were easily able to join the march. When the march turned towards Michigan Ave, however, police skirmish lines were established at cross streets preventing people from either joining the march or leaving it until after the entire march and police escort vehicles were well clear of each intersection. These fixed lines prevented members of the public from joining the march and was even enforced against members of the press, including those with official SPD and NATO Summit credentials. In some cases officers were rude and confrontational towards people both on the march wishing to leave and those trying to join it. Information about how to exit or join the march or circumvent the blockade was often not given despite repeated requests. As the march proceeded south on Michigan, police presence at cross streets became more intensive, including large numbers of officers in riot helmets. This is usually inappropriate for a permitted march, but is somewhat understandable given police fear of breakaway marches in close proximity to the nearby Summit. The end rally point was heavily barricaded and exit points were limited. There was however, more than one exit point and a clear plan to allow demonstrators to disperse to the West towards the Red Line El station. Managing violent crowdsOne of the greatest challenges police face is the management of a violent crowd. While the anti-NATO protests were overwhelmingly non-violent, there were incidents in which groups within larger demonstrations attempted to push through police lines. Most of these incidents occurred during spontaneous marches May 18-21 and did not involve injury to protestors or police. In a few instances individual officers did strike individual demonstrators who attempted to push through a quickly established police line designed to either halt or redirect a march onto a sidewalk. The most serious incident occurred during the rally following the major march on May 20th. The overall march and rally of approximately 7,500 was overwhelmingly peaceful and organized. During the rally, however, a group of about 250 demonstrators, many dressed in black and acting in concert, along with another 100-200 others, attempted to breach the police lines in several locations. Initially, the group ran west with linked arms towards the barricaded streets near the dispersal area.[25] They were met with extensive barricades staffed by numerous police in helmets. In addition several dozen officers in body armor moved in alongside the group. The group, not seeing any potential way to breach the police lines, began proceeding South on State Street. After a very short period, they reversed course and headed back into the main rally group with a very large police escort.[26] The police arrangements at this end of the rally were well thought out and mitigated against the likelihood of a violent confrontation. Strategic use of police barricades along with the presence of sufficient officer, including a large group of State Police visible but in reserve acted as a sufficient deterrent to prevent the intended attack on police lines.Things did not go as well after the group returned to Michigan Ave. After event organizers formally ended the demonstration and asked people to disperse to the west, police skirmish lines that were in place to prevent demonstrators from moving towards the NATO convention access point just to the East began to move in slowly towards the crowd. These officers had helmets and face shields, but not hand held shields or body armor, which other units nearby were equipped with. After a tense standoff, a couple of small plastic shields were passed forward to the front line of demonstrators in one location, and few seconds later a few dozen people attacked the police lines in a wedge–like formation.[27] Police quickly repulsed the attack with batons causing many demonstrators to fall to the ground, some of whom sustained head and arm injuries. Soon after, there were additional clashes along the lines as police used batons either in the sideways pushing position or in one handed swings against demonstrators who pushed them. Tactical officers, regular officers, and supervisors were involved in this use of force. Later, some shields were brought forward to be used in continuing to push the crowd to the west. Some demonstrators who pushed at police were pulled through the police lines and arrested. Throughout the incident police held to their lines and refrained from pursuing people into the crowd. Baton attacks, while quite violent, tended to be targeted and limited in duration and were always in response to aggressive behavior of the demonstrators. In all over two dozen demonstrators and a few police officers required medical treatment. Some protestors suffered lost teeth, broken bones and concussions. Most police injuries were minor, though one officer received a stab wound in the leg. This level of injuries raises serious concerns about police tactics. Of greatest concern is the use of batons to strike people in the head. Several police departments specifically prohibit baton strikes to the head as this essentially rises to the level of deadly force since life threatening and permanent injuries can result. The D.C. Police demonstration policing policy states, "A strike to the head with a riot baton is considered deadly force."[28] The San Francisco Police Department prohibits the use of overhead baton blows and discourages the use of batons to disperse participants in a public demonstration.[29] The Boston Police Department's use of force policy states, "no blows should be struck above the thigh, other than to the arms" unless the officer is in "imminent danger of serious injury."[30]Superintendent McCarthy stated publicly several times that these were violent attacks by criminals against the police and that “we’re not going to stand for that.” This raises an important point. While video evidence shows clearly that police use of batons was in direct response to demonstrators using shields to try and force their way through police lines, this is not a license for completely uninhibited use of force. Police are required to use the minimum amount of force necessary to effect a lawful end. If force was warranted, steps could have been taken to reduce the level of force used. If police had been equipped with shields, which were being used by other officers and were brought up soon after the use of batons, violence and injuries to both police and demonstrators might have been avoided. The main reason for having shields at a demonstration is for exactly this kind of a situation where police are in a defensive position or trying to slowly clear a crowd and they want to avoid violent hand to hand combat. Shields, in these circumstances serve to both protect officers from attack and to allow officers to hold their position and repulse attacks without having to resort in higher levels of force. Body armor is designed to protect officers from exactly the kinds of injuries that 4-5 officers received, which included cuts and bruises and a minor stabbing in the leg. Superintendent McCarthy said that there were no surprises that day and that they had received advanced intelligence from undercover officers in the crowd that an attack at this location was imminent. Why then, were officers with shields and body armor not brought to the front line?Recommendations1) The City of Chicago should amend its parade ordinance to loosen the restrictions on the granting of permits and reduce the penalties for failure to comply. Not all protests are organized months in advance or within a tightly organized framework of marshals and contingents with set signs and banners. While the courts have allowed local jurisdictions to establish reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, these restrictions do not seem reasonable and if tightly enforced, could substantially restrict a wide variety of legitimate protest activity. 2) When organizations are able to request permits far in advance, the City should work hard to respond to those requests in a timely manner and avoid last minute changes that may substantially interfere with organizing and outreach efforts or sow mistrust between protest organizers and the police. 3) It is important for police to have an organized presence at protest events, but that presence should be proportional and serve to reduce the likelihood of escalation. Police should also avoid provocative uses of skirmish lines, especially when they are poorly conceived or implemented. When this happens it invites protestors to challenge the police lines, increasing the likelihood of violent confrontations and arrests. Skirmish lines should not be used just as a show of force. They should be used when there is a compelling and legal necessity and when there are sufficient police resources and organization to do it effectively. 4) Widespread videotaping and surveillance of demonstrators who have broken no law is inappropriate and does not serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose. It has a chilling effect and gives rise to speculation that intelligence gathering is being conducted for political rather than law enforcement purposes. The CPD should no longer videotape or otherwise spy on demonstrators participating in lawful demonstrations. They should also refrain from keeping intelligence files on people or organizations involved in non-violent protest activities. 5) While the specific facts in these cases remain unknown, the use of undercover police agents to actively encourage and facilitate illegal acts is a form of entrapment. In an environment where organized violent attacks by political activists is extremely rare this tactic appears designed to undermine legitimate political organizing rather than prevent actual attacks. The reliability of these methods has also been brought into question, especially when non-police informants are relied upon. The risk of such agents engaging in planting of evidence or exaggeration of facts is great and can undermine police credibility in the eyes of the public when major felony charges are later dismissed or plead out as minor crimes. The CPD should only use undercover agents to infiltrate political organizations when they have concrete and credible evidence of plans for violence or significant property destruction. 6) In situations where the police anticipate violent attacks against police lines, every effort should be made to discourage these attacks through the use of physical barriers and the presence of sufficient and properly equipped officers. When mobile police lines are needed officers should have shields or other protective equipment to reduce the likelihood of injury to police and reduce the need for baton attacks or other high levels of force. 7) Rules concerning the use of batons should be amended to specifically prohibit their use to strike people in the head unless officers have a justification to use deadly force. *This researches was funded by a Leonard and Claire Tow Faculty Travel Fellowship.[1]http://www.wbez.org/news/chief-wants-nato-lessons-translate-street-corner-policing-99498.[2] Murray, Katherine. 2010. “Police Legitimacy and Policing Public Protest.” University of Edinburgh School of Law Working Paper No. 2010/36. [3] Chicago Police B.O.P. #12-0106 5/7/12.[4] Jackson, Jonathan, et al. 2010. “Compliance with the Law and Policing by Consent: Notes on Police and Legal Legitimacy.” Legitimacy and Compliance in Criminal Justice, A. Crawford and A. Hucklesby, eds., Routledge. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1717812.[5]http://www.cityofchicago.org/dam/city/depts/mayor/Press%20Room/Press%20Releases/2011/December/12.14.11G8NATOSafetyOrd.pdf.[6]http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/wpcontent/uploads/2011/05/miamiherald_miamirepealslaw.03112004.pdf.[7]http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-emanuel-protest-permits-20120102,0,6937770.story.[8]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-01-18/news/chi-chicago-aldermen-approve-emanuels-g8-nato-protest-crackdown-20120118_1_g-8and-nato-mayor-rahm-emanuel-aldermen.[9]http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-chicago-officials-deny-permit-for-may-20-nato-protest-march-mar19,0,4994395.story.[10]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-03-29/news/chi-judge-upholds-denial-of-nato-march-permit-20120329_1_nato-talks-nato-summit-public-safety.[11]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-04/news/sns-rt-us-usa-afghanistan-nato-protestbre83402s-20120404_1_nato-summit-protest-leader-andy-thayer.[12]http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=205282.[13]http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/press/entry/chicago-mayor-emanuel-agrees-to-let-nurses-rally-in-daley-plaza/.[14]http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=205282.[15]http://www.suntimes.com/12635179-761/3-protesters-charged-with-conspiracy-to-commit-terrorism.html.[16]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-19/business/sns-rt-nato-summitarrestsl1e8gj1im-20120519_1_nato-summit-chicago-movement-protesters.[17]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/20/nato-summit-arrests-2-mor_n_1531103.html.[18]http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/05/17/police-preemptively-raid-apartment-arrest-activists-ahead-of-nato-summit/.[19]http://publicintelligence.net/chicago-police-nato-summit-media-and-reporters-guidelines/.[20]http://wearechange.org/guns-drawn-on-journalists-car-raided-at-nato/.[21]http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2012/05/nato.html. http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/174619/getty-photographer-injured-journalists-detained-at-nato-protests-in-chicago/. http://jcstearns.tumblr.com/post/23477007742/photos-of-journalist-abuse-and-arrests-at-the-nato.[22]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0hh488pZdg&feature=BFa&list=ULHySyBDHZmcI.[23] http://www.livestream.com/occupyunity/video?clipId=pla_aa231ebe-391f-4cfe-b37a-d5f772bdfd07[24]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB5ttTKd9C0&list=PL9AF8F8C1D3982643&feature=mh_lolz.[25]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HySyBDHZmcI&feature=channel&list=UL.[26]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSmdETEs0yg&feature=channel&list=UL.[27]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8JeL-T6RWk&feature=BFa&list=PL9AF8F8C1D3982643.[28] Dist. of Columbia Metro. Police Department, Standard Operating Procedures for Handling First Amendment Assemblies and Mass Demonstrations, L-10, L-11, (2011).[29] San Francisco Police Department, General Order 5.01, Sec. I.K.[30] Boston Police Department, Rules and Procedures, Rule 304 (1994), available at http://www.cityofboston.gov/Images_Documents/rule304_tcm3-9587.pdf.